Category talk:Candidates for deletion
Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion. Start and Stop There's already a Start-Stop page. --cuckooman (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC) : Just merge all three together. User:Combak :: I didn't delete the start and stop. But I created a redirect on these pages to Start-Stop because they are usefull keywords. --Justme2 17:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC) : We did it again. There also was a page Start/Stop. Due to the "/" this is in fact a subpage of the the page Start. I copied the text to Start-Stop, and replaced the old text there. I also placed a on Start/Stop and fixed some links which were pointing there. --Justme2 22:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC) gas, liquid, powder, solid Article States of matter is enough Myven18 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC) :No, because we have liquid, powder, and solid state articles. --Sand master 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC) :Depends. Is there enough information about them that you couldn't just have them as sections of the states of matter article? --cuckooman (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC) :I would think so. The states of matter are an "overview" of the Gas, Liquid, Solids, and the individual articles tell all the information about them. --Buggy793 04:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC) :I removed the Delete tag from Gas (State of Matter). Unfortunately, they are just about all stubs, and they should be merged into one page. I propose the page "States of Matter" which have the matter states for Powder Game: Liquid, Powder, Gas, Solid, and Other. Each one should also state what elements fall into the states, with "Other" being ones that aregueably don't fit DIRECTLY into the other states (such as laser or thunder). FoxtrotZero 22:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Get-Set I just noticed that article Powder Game Code exist Myven18 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :The code article is about the codes themselves, Get-Set should stay because it's about the save/load feature, not the codes. --cuckooman (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC) :Someone put like ten of these thing on it. Who? Yeah, I think this should stay. The Get-Set is completely different from Powder Game codes. Cuckooman covered it, basically --Buggy793 04:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Get-Set and Codes go hand-in-hand. Similar features that work together. Perhaps we should merge them into the same page? I propose we do just that under the title "Powder Game Codes". FoxtrotZero 22:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Powder game update history Duplicate (made by me, lol)Myven 21:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC) : I agree. Powder Game Timeline should be enough. Also the "Powder ''game update history" has a lowercase letter. I added the delete request. --Justme2 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Loop Duplicate (Side) Myven 21:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC) :'Resolved!' Loop is now a redirection to Side. No deletion required. --Justme2 17:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Compo We already have a Compo Item page, right? This is unneeded. --Buggy793 15:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC) * I intended for it to be a redirect page (no harm in doing so, right?) but the deletion tag stopped it from serving its purpose. Removed the deletion tag. --bewnt 16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC) :: I agree. A redirection for some key words is OK. But wrong titles or typos should get deleted, in contrast to this. --Justme2 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Category:Dan-ball related acronyms Myven has suggested this category for deletion. I agree with him. There are one things like SR, PG, EE, ... which go into this category, mostly the games themselves. Stuff like EXP, DEX and so is not an acronym (see definition at wikipedia). If we want such a category we should create "Category: Dan-ball related abbreviations" instead. If we delete the Category:Dan-ball related acronyms, we should not forget to remove the category from SR. --Justme2 00:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC) I agree. It is more Abbreveations than Acronyms. The new page is a good idea, but it shouldn't be a list, so much as headers for games and subheaders for the abbreviations. Lets not forget to tell what they mean, and where they are found. Perhaps even a picture? So should i delete this page? FoxtrotZero 22:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC) PNG files Someone (Yonder, if I'm not mistaken) was against using enemy GIF images due to low quality. Even though I marked enemy PNG images for deletion - they shall NOT be deleted. Eventually PNG images of all enemies will be uploaded, and we'll send the GIF images into deletion. --bewnt 01:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC) My Ideas My Ideas is pretty useless. Wikis are supposed to be informational and useful for information. He can make different threads for each and make them into "idea" articles(Like acid), but not just a list of things he wants in the game --Buggy793 09:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC) :Ok, Sand master was the one who initially requested the deletion. I fixed the request, and agree with you! Therefore I'm doing it right now. --Justme2 11:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Category: Unusual player abilities Myven has marked this category for deletion. I agree! This category has been created long time ago and it seems it has never been used. Category: Powder Game player should be enough for us. --Justme2 11:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC) :Deletion '''Done!' --Justme2 14:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Category:Powder Game projects The "Category:Powder Game projects" has been created by Myven18 on 10 August. It seems nobody has ever used and it has been marked for deletion on 4 December by an unkown person (maybe "osko"). Does anybody see a use for it. I'm not even sure what it was supposed for. --Justme2 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC) :You can delete it, i dont mind. Myven 17:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC) ::Done! --Justme2 16:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC) BG-... Someone marked these for deletion. I agree. They are covered under the BG article, so these aren't necessary. --Buggy793 01:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC) : I agree. Sand master has also agreed (see: Talk:BG) and he added most of the tags. Myven18 has also agreed (see: Talk:BG-non). I think we should change all the BG-whatever into a redirection to BG. Reason: They are keywords, and it would be potentially imaginable to create own articles, and in this case a redirection is recommended. --Justme2 13:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Category:Ham Race objects I think the Category:Ham Race objects leads to overcategorization. Either the Category:Ham Race or the Category:Ham Race objects will have too few articles. I think the main category Category:Ham Race should be enough for all Ham Race articles and images. There are still only 7 articles in total, and even if we cover every single aspect of Ham Race in an own article it won't get that much more, that a subcategory would really improve the overview. This is a difference in contrast to PG or SR with its huge amount of elements and items. That's why I moved all articles and requested deletion. --Justme2 13:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)